The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.

That's utter BS. There is no correlation with power and hatred. A poor person with no social status can be just as hateful as a rich person with social status. A rich person with social status can be just as loving as a poor person with no social status.

If what you're saying is true, then every white male with social status in the U.S. secretly wants to re-establish slavery. The social power only allows people with hatred to act on their hatred on greater levels, it does not produce the hatred.

Speaking of things with no correlation, your deductions from his post have nothing to do with what he actually meant. Though I suspect that I don't agree with what he's actually implying, either. Too many oversimplifications abound here.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.

That's utter BS. There is no correlation with power and hatred. A poor person with no social status can be just as hateful as a rich person with social status. A rich person with social status can be just as loving as a poor person with no social status.

If what you're saying is true, then every white male with social status in the U.S. secretly wants to re-establish slavery. The social power only allows people with hatred to act on their hatred on greater levels, it does not produce the hatred.

Speaking of things with no correlation, your deductions from his post have nothing to do with what he actually meant. Though I suspect that I don't agree with what he's actually implying, either. Too many oversimplifications abound here.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

While this maybe true, a person that isn't open minded is less likely to admit to being wrong.

Well, less likely to admit they are wrong about an issues they care about. No one wants to think of themselves as closed minded, bigoted, or biased; so often people will find token issues to concede on to convince themselves they are a reasonable person. I remember going through Lutheran confirmation and the process of "questioning" my faith; and even then I noted how dishonestly the matter of questioning the possibility of god was pursued then.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

While this maybe true, a person that isn't open minded is less likely to admit to being wrong.

Well, less likely to admit they are wrong about an issues they care about. No one wants to think of themselves as closed minded, bigoted, or biased; so often people will find token issues to concede on to convince themselves they are a reasonable person. I remember going through Lutheran confirmation and the process of "questioning" my faith; and even then I noted how dishonestly the matter of questioning the possibility of god was pursued then.

I completely agree.. Especially when you question your faith. I wouldn't say that I questioned my faith, but I opened myself to take what the pastor was saying as "up in the air" to be determined as logical or not. This is as opposed to blindly accepting it as the truth just because s/he said so. At the end, there was no change in my beliefs.

Although what you said is true, if you're not able to see yourself as possibly "missing the picture", then you're not doing yourself any justice. No matter who you are, you don't have the answers to everything and your personal experience is just that. It is very possible that other personal experiences may very well contradict you in a way that you wouldn't have ever imagined.

This is part of the reason why I like to travel the world and see other countries. When you travel abroad, you'll realize that your view on life is very different from others.

Well, like I tell everyone else who pulls that same stunt, you're just using a cop out because you don't want to contradict your claim.

No. We "pull that stunt" because you have an amazing ability to completely misunderstand what other people are saying, then twist that misunderstanding around and respond with something that has nothing at all to do with the original topic, and then jump up and down and complain when people don't want to argue with you about something they never said and don't really care about anyway.

Quote:

You responded to my "family is your race" comment with the interpretation as "your race is your family" which is an incredibly stupid interpretation.

Because you used the argument that helping out your "friends and family" isn't racism as support for your earlier statement that members of a racial group should help out members of their own racial group.

I sometimes use a debating method where if I see someone use a fallacious argument, I will disprove that argument by first assuming that it is true and then showing that it leads us to an absurd or impossible conclusion. Most of the time people get what I'm doing. Occasionally, someone (like you) will miss that I'm testing their own argument and think that I'm actually arguing for the absurd conclusion. In this case, I took your argument that since helping friends and family isn't racist, then helping out members of your own racial group isn't racist and disproved it by showing that if it's "true", then all members of our own racial group must also be friends and family. Since that is clearly false, then the argument must be false as well.

Get it?

I am not arguing that all members of your race are also "friends and family". What I am doing is showing you that your argument assumes that this must be true, and since it's clearly not true, your argument must be wrong.

Get it?

Do you have even the slightest understanding of logic and critical thinking?

Quote:

You're only responding to comments that you think you can counter.

No. I'm only responding to comments that have some vague relevance to the point that I was making in the first place. I never said anything about people choosing to buy products that are aimed at their racial group. I never said anything about people choosing to help out their friends and family. I did say that buying products from a store because the store is owned and operated by someone of your own race is racism. And I did say that helping people out solely because they are of the same race as you is racism.

You keep tossing random words in, but they have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Quote:

I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.

Participate in what? Your own delusional ramblings? I'm not going to participate in that. If you want to stick to actually debating relevant points, I'll participate. But when you just start spewing what appear to be completely random points, and then insist that if I don't debate those points with you, I'm somehow avoiding some critically important thing, I'm going to just ignore it.

Stick to the point. You said that it was not racism for members of an ethnic minority to help out other members of their own minority group purely because they were both members of the same group. That is what I disagree with you about. If you can debate that, I'll participate. But I fail to see how arguing that it's not racism to help out your friends and family in any way affects or supports the statement you originally made and to which I originally disagreed.

No. We "pull that stunt" because you have an amazing ability to completely misunderstand what other people are saying, then twist that misunderstanding around and respond with something that has nothing at all to do with the original topic, and then jump up and down and complain when people don't want to argue with you about something they never said and don't really care about anyway.

So the problem is that he's too much like you? It's funny because you don't realize how many times you completely misunderstood him, while it should have been obvious.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

No. We "pull that stunt" because you have an amazing ability to completely misunderstand what other people are saying, then twist that misunderstanding around and respond with something that has nothing at all to do with the original topic, and then jump up and down and complain when people don't want to argue with you about something they never said and don't really care about anyway.

So the problem is that he's too much like you? It's funny because you don't realize how many times you completely misunderstood him, while it should have been obvious.

Did you notice how he conveniently overlooked the "label argument" AGAIN... Instead of admitting that he was wrong on his statement on labels, he keeps ignoring the topic.

Well, I'll just wait till the next argument when it'll be me and him vs the rest of the forum. I guess it's slightly refreshing to be considered only a half idiot as opposed to a complete idiot. Then again, that's much more entertaining.

So the problem is that he's too much like you? It's funny because you don't realize how many times you completely misunderstood him, while it should have been obvious.

I have not misunderstood a single thing he has said in this thread. Actually, let me clarify that. I have not misunderstood the words he has written down. As to understanding the bizarre mental process behind those words? That's kind of a different story. I tend to analyze things logically, so it is hard for me to follow a completely illogical thought train.

Hence, why I just ignore the things that make absolutely no sense at all.

I have not misunderstood a single thing he has said in this thread. Actually, let me clarify that. I have not misunderstood the words he has written down. As to understanding the bizarre mental process behind those words? That's kind of a different story. I tend to analyze things logically, so it is hard for me to follow a completely illogical thought train.

Hence, why I just ignore the things that make absolutely no sense at all.

It was pretty obvious that you misunderstood some simple arguments that he made as I followed the thread, but of course you don't think you did. You have way more confidence than ability, as usual.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Did you notice how he conveniently overlooked the "label argument" AGAIN... Instead of admitting that he was wrong on his statement on labels, he keeps ignoring the topic.

And you are playing "change the subject" again. Why can't you follow a single logical thread in a debate?

Stick to one thread of the discussion. Can you do that? Let's look just at the belief that it's not racism for members of a race to help other members of their own race in preference to those who are not members of their own race. Do you agree with, or disagree with that belief?

The problem I have with your argument style (and you aren't alone on this btw, many posters here do it as well, just not to the extreme you do), is that you make a claim and when asked to support it, you instead start talking about something else. It's what I call the "yeah, but..." argument methodology. The second someone questions one of your premises, you go "yeah, but..." and toss something else into the arena. Eventually, you've tossed so many different and somewhat unrelated things into the argument that the original point is lost and no one can follow the dozen different minor and relatively unimportant points you're making. And when they attempt to trim the issue down to just those that matter to them you attack them for ignoring parts of your argument.

I'll give you a hint. Many of the things you have said in this thread are not things I disagree with factually, but I disagree with "logically". What that means, for example, is that while I agree that it's not racism to help out your friends and family, that fact does not logically support the statement that it's not racism for members of a race to prefer to help members of their own race. The proof of this is to show that "members of one's own race" is not equivalent to "friends and family". Which is exactly what I did.

It was pretty obvious that you misunderstood some simple arguments that he made as I followed the thread, but of course you don't think you did.

I'm honestly curious: What argument of his did I misunderstand? I've ignored several of his arguments as irrelevant, but I don't believe I've actually misunderstood them.

I was sure you'd ask, but no, not worth my time. If it were either amusing or productive, I would oblige. But it's definitely not an amusing prospect, reading all that nonsense again, and in all the years we've had a back and forth you've never given me any indication that it would be productive.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Of course. Why expect anyone to actually back up their claims? This way, you get to perpetuate your own assumptions about me and don't have to actually bother with things like facts. This is hardly the first time I've encountered the "Just call the other guy wrong without ever supporting your position over and over until the thread ends" tactic of debate on this board. In fact, I'd suggest that it's far and away the most commonly used counter I run into.

Most people don't want to actually debate. They just want to insist that they are right and then walk away feeling good about themselves. And I guess that's ok from a purely self-focused perspective. I just happen to think it's somewhat self-defeating in the long run though. I mean, the approach is designed to make you feel like you're better or smarter than those around you, but somewhere in the back of your mind, you have to know that you're really just lying to yourself.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

I didn't deny anything. I posited an explanation as to why you were unwilling to back up a claim you made. Given that any reasonable person would wonder why you bothered to make the claim in the first place if you were unwilling to support it, I feel perfectly justified to speculate.

Quote:

Predictable.

It's like you're me, talking about you. What is predictable is that you'd toss an attack at me, but then refuse to back it up. And then get huffy because I pointed out that you just did this. Lol!

Quote:

Of course it's preferable to the expected ensuing semantic quibbling over how you didn't actually misunderstand something.

Ah yes. Mantra-like repetition of the statement you want to believe is true. Like I said. Predictable.

Say what you will about me Kachi, but I'm never afraid to back up what I say. Ever.

Quote:

You're pathetic, but perhaps worse, you're starting to bore me.

Ah! And the "I'd respond, but I'm bored/tired/you'restupid/whatever" line. Still predictable. How about doing something novel and not bothering to post something if you're not willing to discuss and/or defend the thing you post? Wouldn't that be amazing!?

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

And you are playing "change the subject" again. Why can't you follow a single logical thread in a debate?

1. You were the one that freakin started the "label argument" not me. I just responded to your words. You got offended when I said "black movies",etc. stating that was part of the problem. So either my comments were on subject or your original "label argument" was off subject Which one is it?

2. I stated the relevance of my comments, so the onus is on you to prove how my explanation failed. If I'm giving you explanations of relevancy and you continue to ignore them as "irrelevant", then it is obvious that you're just using that statement as a cop out, because I just explained to you the relevancy.

3. This is a freakin Internet forum. So even if it were slightly off topic, which it isn't, that's how these things go. This topic started talking about having more white friends, to hiring specifically white people to the scare of "economical shift". You even said yourself that you weren't participating before, but now that the subject has CHANGED into something less silly, now you will participate.

So don't give me that ONE argument BS, I just proved you wrong in every possible aspect.

Gbaji wrote:

I'm honestly curious: What argument of his did I misunderstand? I've ignored several of his arguments as irrelevant, but I don't believe I've actually misunderstood them.

The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as ****) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.

That's just an example. Pretty much every where you made a statement that I implied white people are racists for not doing something.

I mean, if you actually responded to my statements, you would know this.

I would also like highlight the bold where you are attacking LABELS again, so how is talking about labels off topic if you keep bringing them up? Oh, I get it, it's relevant for you to mention them when they support your argument, but not relevant when they support my argument.

Let's do this. If you believe so much that my statements are irrelevant, why don't you answer them and explain how they are irrelevant beyond simply saying "they're irrelevant"... you know, kind of like how debates operate?

Yeah, that you've called me that in the past is what makes it funny. You're a hypocrite, that's the joke.

Last I checked both of us freely admit that we troll gbaji. I generally don't troll just any idiot, only the ones who cross me without provocation, like you. Otherwise I make an unnatural but concerted effort to be civil.

I really don't care who you troll, but your attempts to troll me were insubstantial and dry. My problem with you isn't that you troll, but how you troll. Badly. I just probably wouldn't have taken notice if you hadn't addressed me. This little diversion aside, I've yet to see any reason to even talk to you.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Yeah, that you've called me that in the past is what makes it funny. You're a hypocrite, that's the joke.

Last I checked both of us freely admit that we troll gbaji. I generally don't troll just any idiot, only the ones who cross me without provocation, like you. Otherwise I make an unnatural but concerted effort to be civil.

I really don't care who you troll, but your attempts to troll me were insubstantial and dry. My problem with you isn't that you troll, but how you troll. Badly. I just probably wouldn't have taken notice if you hadn't addressed me. This little diversion aside, I've yet to see any reason to even talk to you.

Well, personally, I don't think I troll at all, though I've known myself to be ironic, facetious and bellicose, often at once. The substantial truth of the matter is that I don't like you very much, though detailing your every grating flaw represents an obstacle course of self-expression I'm disinclined to run.

Anyway, I certainly don't troll Gbaji - he is not worth my time. Occasionally I riff off of him, but frankly even that's become so easy it's not even worth it anymore.

You are, of course, under no obligation to respond to the things I say.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

And you are playing "change the subject" again. Why can't you follow a single logical thread in a debate?

1. You were the one that freakin started the "label argument" not me.

Um... You're the one who said that members of an ethnic minority should help their own group ahead of others. All the silly lists of products is irrelevant. That's not any thing I'm arguing against. But you keep bringing it up as though I have to anyway.

I have no problem with people buying products targeted to them, even if said targeting happens to occur along racial lines

Quote:

I just responded to your words. You got offended when I said "black movies",etc. stating that was part of the problem.

In the context of your earlier argument that minority groups should help out members of their own group, not because of products that appeal to them but purely because those who will benefit from their actions are members of their own racial group.

If someone attends a "black movie", not because the product appeals to them but because black people will benefit economically from them buying the ticket, then they are acting on a racist motivation. That was what I was talking about. You brought up this example as a defense of your earlier claim. Don't blame me for interpreting this example as though it's meant to be taken within that context.

Quote:

So don't give me that ONE argument BS, I just proved you wrong in every possible aspect.

Except that all of these other side issues derive from that one. You transformed the issue from "black people helping other black people because they are black" to "black people buying products targeted towards black people" and now insist that I must defend an argument that the latter is racist. But you were the one who changed the words. Not me. If someone buys a product or attends a film because they enjoy that product or film, there's nothing wrong with that at all. But if they do it specifically to help out the seller/maker of that product because that person is a member of the same racial group, then it's racist.

This is why I keep asking you to focus on the original issue. It's the one that's relevant. I did not say that those other things were racism.

Quote:

Quote:

The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as ****) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.

That's just an example. Pretty much every where you made a statement that I implied white people are racists for not doing something.

You completely missed the point. Remember when you started off arguing that it was ok for black people to do this because if they didn't white people wouldn't? That was specific to the original statement about helping out because someone was a member of your own racial group (not because the product was something you liked). At that time you were *not* talking about buying a list of products. You were speaking about acting in ways that helped people of your own group because they of your group (racial discrimination). Thus, your justification about white people not doing these things was within that context.

You *later* changed to talking about buying products. It wasn't me misunderstanding you, it was you changing what you were talking about mid-stream. I repeatedly said that I didn't have a problem with buying products because you liked them, or they were targeted at you. So can you drop that? You're insisting that I defend an argument I never made.

Quote:

Let's do this. If you believe so much that my statements are irrelevant, why don't you answer them and explain how they are irrelevant beyond simply saying "they're irrelevant"... you know, kind of like how debates operate?

I have explained to you at least 3 times now exactly and in excruciating detail why your argument about black people buying products targeted at them isn't relevant to your earlier assertion about people of a racial group helping out people of their own racial group. Yet you keep pretending that I haven't. Let me try asking you a relevant question:

Do you understand the difference between a black person buying a product that has been marketed to appeal to black people, and a black person buying a product because the profits from the sale will help out black people? Can you see how one of those things is racial discrimination and the other isn't?

This is part of your problem then. Stop doing that. Stop labeling people based on racial stereotypes you assume must apply. You then might not be so surprised at a white rapper, or a black country singer, or whatever else doesn't fit your pre-assumed stereotypes. Seriously. The problem is with you and the need to apply racial labels to everything. Some of us don't do that.

This is you making an argument that part of the problem is making racial labels. I countered your argument to say that we as society, make labels all of the time and questioned how specific labels made you feel. So which one is it? Is your argument above irrelevant or is my COUNTER-argument relevant?

You know you are wrong because I showed you 3 different ways how you were wrong, yet you only replied to 2. Why? Because, like I said, you're only replying to stuff that you think you can counter.

That's why I'm not answering any of your questions till you answer mine. At this point, if you're not responding to my questions in the post in question, I'm not even going to waste my time reading all your posts, because you're just wasting my time. It's a shame, because I have responses that I want to share, but if you're not going to even take the time to address them, then you're wasting my time.

ALmalieque wrote:

Let's do this. If you believe so much that my statements are irrelevant, why don't you answer them and explain how they are irrelevant beyond simply saying "they're irrelevant"... you know, kind of like how debates operate?

You keep claiming that they are irrelevant, but this was a two fold condition. You, answering them first, then explaining how they are irrelevant, not just saying that they are irrelevant.

You're like that person who swears up and down that "they got it", but keeps ******** up, but wont listen to any suggestions, only to keep ******** up. Then, you constantly wonder why you keep ******** up.

I'm telling you that you are confused, that's why you think it's irrelevant. You don't understand my point nor the situation, that's why you think it's racist and that's why you think it's irrelevant. I'm telling you if you spend HALF as much time answering my questions as you do telling me that they are irrelevant, then you would understand. Instead, you keep saying "I got it", when its blatant from your responses that you don't got it.

Your statements of understanding of my argument are wrong You're missing key elements which make them seem the way you are portraying them. Rather if its from my bad explaining or your bad interpretation, either way, it's wrong and I'm trying to show you, but you're not wanting to listen.

You can't possibly spend this much time and effort arguing about something irrelevant to the argument to avoid arguing about something "irrelevant" about the argument. OBVIOUSLY you just don't want to answer the questions, else you wouldn't be arguing with me right now about something that IS irrelevant to the argument.

This is part of your problem then. Stop doing that. Stop labeling people based on racial stereotypes you assume must apply. You then might not be so surprised at a white rapper, or a black country singer, or whatever else doesn't fit your pre-assumed stereotypes. Seriously. The problem is with you and the need to apply racial labels to everything. Some of us don't do that.

This is you making an argument that part of the problem is making racial labels. I countered your argument to say that we as society, make labels all of the time and questioned how specific labels made you feel. So which one is it? Is your argument above irrelevant or is my COUNTER-argument relevant?

Your counter-argument is irrelevant. There's a difference between a black person buying the album of a singer because he is black and it'll "help out" someone of your own racial group, and being black and buying certain products (yes, even rap music or do-rags) marketed to you. You keep missing this. You're trying to defend your starting argument that it's ok for members of an ethnic group to help out other members of the same group by using lists of targeted products.

That's not the issue. You're talking about lists of products in order to avoid talking about the thing you said originally.

Quote:

You can't possibly spend this much time and effort arguing about something irrelevant to the argument to avoid arguing about something "irrelevant" about the argument. OBVIOUSLY you just don't want to answer the questions, else you wouldn't be arguing with me right now about something that IS irrelevant to the argument.

Great! So lets agree that we've spent more than enough time and effort arguing about that, and how about you answer the question I keep asking you:

Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

Your counter-argument is irrelevant. There's a difference between a black person buying the album of a singer because he is black and it'll "help out" someone of your own racial group, and being black and buying certain products (yes, even rap music or do-rags) marketed to you. You keep missing this. You're trying to defend your starting argument that it's ok for members of an ethnic group to help out other members of the same group by using lists of targeted products.

What is my counter argument? It appears that you don't know what it is or you're just making something up.

FYI: White people buy more hip-hop than black people... largely due to the difference in population.

Gbaji wrote:

Great! So lets agree that we've spent more than enough time and effort arguing about that, and how about you answer the question I keep asking you:

So, you agree that this is just as irrelevant as what you claim as my "counter argument", therefore, this has nothing to do with the fact that anything is "irrelevant", but the fact that you just don't want to answer those questions.

Gbaji wrote:

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

I have not danced around anything. I told you that until you answer my questions, then I'm not going to answer your questions. My questions support my argument to show how you are misunderstanding my point, but you refuse to respond to them. So, what's the point of me responding to your question now, if you're just going to ignore me and pick and choose what to respond to?

Also, I enjoy a number of "all black cast" movies. I really want to see "Colored Girls," I think that looks really good. I don't like the Medea movies, though. I loved "Waiting to Exhale" and "Set it Off."

I also loved The Fresh Price of Bel Air, but I don't know if you'd count that...

Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.

Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.

I agree with you on the first part, but I do think that there's something wrong with "racial solidarity" when it involves some form of competition (I mean, as opposed to celebratory or historical situations, like Black History Month, or a multi-cultural day at a school). I would consider choosing to shop specifically at black-owned stores to fall under that category.

I'm guilty of the same feelings in some situations, as are a lot of people, I think. I've always got a soft spot for a good American white basketball player, for example, since they seem to be so few and far between.

But what do such feelings do, other than perpetuate competition between races? I don't see them doing anything but increasing the "us vs. them" mentality, or at the very least, preventing us from bridging cultural divides.

Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.

I agree with you on the first part, but I do think that there's something wrong with "racial solidarity" when it involves some form of competition (I mean, as opposed to celebratory or historical situations, like Black History Month, or a multi-cultural day at a school). I would consider choosing to shop specifically at black-owned stores to fall under that category.

I'm guilty of the same feelings in some situations, as are a lot of people, I think. I've always got a soft spot for a good American white basketball player, for example, since they seem to be so few and far between.

But what do such feelings do, other than perpetuate competition between races? I don't see them doing anything but increasing the "us vs. them" mentality, or at the very least, preventing us from bridging cultural divides.

But racism isn't "engendering competition between the races." It's favoring one race over another because you believe it to be superior. That's not happening in either situation.

Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.

I agree with you on the first part, but I do think that there's something wrong with "racial solidarity" when it involves some form of competition (I mean, as opposed to celebratory or historical situations, like Black History Month, or a multi-cultural day at a school). I would consider choosing to shop specifically at black-owned stores to fall under that category.

I'm guilty of the same feelings in some situations, as are a lot of people, I think. I've always got a soft spot for a good American white basketball player, for example, since they seem to be so few and far between.

But what do such feelings do, other than perpetuate competition between races? I don't see them doing anything but increasing the "us vs. them" mentality, or at the very least, preventing us from bridging cultural divides.

But racism isn't "engendering competition between the races." It's favoring one race over another because you believe it to be superior. That's not happening in either situation.

Right. I agree with you on that (now bolded for clarity); perhaps it wasn't clear. I was responding to the "There's nothing wrong with that, really." at the end of your quote. While I don't think anyone could call such feelings or actions "racist", I do think that they're harmful to race relations.

Right. I agree with you on that (now bolded for clarity); perhaps it wasn't clear. I was responding to the "There's nothing wrong with that, really." at the end of your quote. While I don't think anyone could call such feelings or actions "racist", I do think that they're harmful to race relations.

Right. I agree with you on that (now bolded for clarity); perhaps it wasn't clear. I was responding to the "There's nothing wrong with that, really." at the end of your quote. While I don't think anyone could call such feelings or actions "racist", I do think that they're harmful to race relations.

Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.

Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.

I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.

I agree with you on the first part, but I do think that there's something wrong with "racial solidarity" when it involves some form of competition (I mean, as opposed to celebratory or historical situations, like Black History Month, or a multi-cultural day at a school). I would consider choosing to shop specifically at black-owned stores to fall under that category.

I'm guilty of the same feelings in some situations, as are a lot of people, I think. I've always got a soft spot for a good American white basketball player, for example, since they seem to be so few and far between.

But what do such feelings do, other than perpetuate competition between races? I don't see them doing anything but increasing the "us vs. them" mentality, or at the very least, preventing us from bridging cultural divides.

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 1:36pm by Eske

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 1:41pm by Eske

The black person choosing to shop at a black person owned store is not racism. In gbaji's tidy little white world of dis-reality the individual is choosing the 'black store' over the 'white store'. However, shopping at the store of his choice, because it's owned by a relative a jew, a black person or even an ***, is not making any statement about the other store at all.

That was a joke, but some do, but from what I gathered, many people didn't, they just wanted to see "justice" for a black man, which is ironic, if he's guilty. People were still ****** off about Rodney King. When I was in Middle School, the school didn't allow us to see/hear the verdict of the O.J. Trial..

Belkira wrote:

But racism isn't "engendering competition between the races." It's favoring one race over another because you believe it to be superior. That's not happening in either situation.

Those are my words exactly.. I just wanted to take this time to go over the few times that we actually agree.